Yep, that about sums it up HADZ...............couldn't have said it better myself

Just a very quick comment, of the top. People have rushed to judgement mighty quick and athiest orthodox Christian or whatever, seem to miss the point.
The essay is about myths (or not, depending on your beliefs), explanations and how where and why these might or might not change over time. The writer is not peddling an agenda; not telling you all to get to church or you'll get zapped with a lightning bolt. He's talking about why and how people might think about their origins and purpose and what constitutes value and meaning in what we call life. There is actually a lot of Jung in his approach.
Musing on what the Genesis story and its variations involve concerns a plausible characteristic of humanity; its "consciousness", what tensions exist within whatever mechanism(s) that might comprise the "mind" and how it works and what that might mean, and mind in relation to different possible concepts of "soul", as to value, meaning and possibility.
Well done, "onlione opinion". I always find these occasional excursions into metaphysics as useful for offering an additional component in developing a vantage point for consideration of more mundane issues, such as revealing background structure and issues as to culture wars, then politics, etc.

My goodness! The book of Genesis has been studied and written about for almost 2000years and the writing still goes on. I wonder at the arrogance of someone who bursts into print with a complete disregard for the scholarship that has preceded. For example, the puzzle of the two creations of man is explained in the source hypothesis that divides up the priestly account (the creation in seven days) and the Yawhist account, the story of the garden of Eden. These are two separate stories that have been placed side by side. This has been know since the nineteenth century. The idea that circle of Willis was the place of Eden is very strange. To be frank, articles like this only increase the difficulty of writing theology for the general public.

Peter Sellick

David - you might enjoy "The J Bible", a bit tongue in cheek but makes some good points re the obvious redacting by various groups/entities jockeying for influence.
Bearing in mind the Pentateuch (first five books) were complied during the Babylonian Exile to guard agains the hebrews eliding away to other, more congeial gods, it's hardly surprsing that it's banal & derivative.

I, for one, enjoyed this. It's an interesting exercise in taking an alternative reading of a traditional text. It illustrates clearly that texts, including the Bible, are open to interpretation.

On the other hand, it's a bit disappointed that it is shouted down so quickly. I have a feeling many of the detractors missed the point of the article - of course, I may have missed it as well. We are, as this article clearly indicates, all entitled to our own interpretations.

Paul
I was waiting to see if anyone understood my article enough to realise that I am only using Genesis as a story to explain a hypothesis. I have no idea if there is any physical truth in my explanation of Genesis. Nobody does.
It should have been clear from the first paragraph that this was a commentary, and the way the judgment came straight in was disappointing.
I use Genesis as a story to illustrate a basic hypothesis.
1. To be conscious we need an internal mirror. The proof of two entities in the human head is basically beyond doubt thanks to split brain theory.
2. If the two entities where identical twins it would be a seamless experience. We would have no concept of it.
3. The introduction of judgment breaks the bond and the two entities become the soul and the ego causing internal conflict.
4. A possible way past the internal conflict is to eliminate judgment so that consciousness once again becomes a seamless experience.
I had to leave a lot out of the article because of the word limit imposed by OLO. For anyone may be interested I have placed a longer and more detailed version of the hypothesis on my website.
You will find it about half way down the introductory blurb on the index page. Included is a diagram of the Garden of Eden and the Circle of Willis and they are remarkably similar, which makes it easy for me to use Genesis.
Sells. Same old tactics. You use Christian sources to prove Christianity. This is fallacious and nothing more than self congratulating in-breeding.
Christianity does not have a monopoly on Genesis and your input carries no more weight than any one else. If there is any arrogance Sells it is on your part with your usual pompous assertions delivered with an air of authority that is utterly misplaced.